[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^
You aren't worth having a discussion with, becuase you have assumed what my position is, and fail to read what I actually say. You say that I think the whole thing is BS, which I do not. You say I am countering global trends, but no, I am referring specifically to data in Canada. Maybe try to read my words before countering points I am not making. It seems to be a common tactic of people who don't want to discuss real data when it is inconvenient to the hysteria, and are zealots in their defence such that sweeping general claims are the only way to get their point across. Science is about discussing the anomalies. It isn't a religion.

I'm making an assumption on the approach you take to discussing the issue. All science appears to be wrong. That is a consistency of your posts and links and its because of your observations of the local community and then suggesting that isolated measurements are respective to a whole study. Science is about studying a topic and applying the scientific method to it. Discussion of anomalies is more along the line of rationalism more so than empiricism which the scientific method follows.

That, and your interpretation of the last point is baffling. You bold the last part of the sentence, which is the part that agrees with what you are saying, but the entire sentence from beginning says the opposite of what you are saying. Here ya go, maybe read it 3 times, the whole sentence this time: "In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic". Bolding the last bit makes it look like the opposite of what it says.

That was not the intent. The intent was to show that the report does say that one thing - that the number of hurricanes are not increasing - but that the it also said a much more. It is easy to look at the conclusion from the report and think it says that the numbers are not increasing and make the assumption that this a good thing and that climate science is bogus. But the rest of the report shows clear trend information to provide more information that could this statement may ultimately be irrelevant. If the result we more, but less powerful storms, that would probably be a livable outcome. But the report indicates that frequency is likely to remain consistent, with the intensity and the associated effects of these storms increasing and becoming much more severe.

And forgive me for not putting any weight in what a model is saying will happen in 50 years. Nonsense.

You should. That is how the scientific method works. A hypothesis is proposed then experiments are carried out to determine if the original hypothesis is correct. Models are essentially hypothesis built on what the data shows and ultimately what we are to test against. If the model shows where we are headed, and further testing confirms the model, we should be very concerned if the longer term model has negative outcomes that we can avoid through proper action. We should be wary of these models, as it was model from 50 years ago that predicted the current state we find ourselves.

Anyway, you refuse to actually read what I write, and put your spin on my thoughts, so I'm not going to carry on with you.

That's unfortunate, but fine. It isn't spin, its just looking at the information holistically and trying to correct an interpretation of the data. Believe what you like and argue what you like. Rationalism usually wins out in these politicized debates anyways.